ABHJJIT SEN & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 983

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR, SABYASACHI MUKHERJI

Case summary

4117 &4119of1983) have challenged the University's decision which decision has been upheld ' by tbe Allahabad High Couri) of refusing them admission to the M. 4118/83 (filed by Appellant Satyendra Vikram Singh) were not pressed before us and have to be dismissed.

Judgment text

• ABHJJI'f SEN & ORS. l .. v. STATE OF U. P. & ORS. December 6, 1983 (V. 0. TULZAPURKAR AND SABYAS•CHI MUKHARJI, JJ. ] Constitution of India 1950, Articles 126 & 136. Professional cuileges-Admission to-Entrance test he! d-'Key answer' suppiied by paper-set/er to a question found wrong according to acknowledged text-book-Student whether to be penalised for not giving an ·answer, which • accords with 'key· a(lswer'- Court wheiher e_,ntitied ro deterndning the correct ariswer-Student whether entitled lo ad111ission. The appellants who were candidates seeking admission into the . M. B. B. S. Medical Colleges in the State, in their writ·petilions before the High Court, assailed thep~ocedure of implementing and carrying out the ·Multiple Choice Ob- . • jCctive Type Test' \vhile holding the 'Combined P! e-Medical Test' for admission. They alleged that the 'key an~we~· supplied by. the Paper setter to question J'l~o. 31 in the Zoology PapCr (being A1ternative No, 2) ; "31.

in the veqebrat~s Oxygen is translated bY the blood as follows: , (I) Absorbed (Typographically wrongly typed as Absorbed) to the surface of R. B. C. (2) Combined with Hemoglobin to form a co~plex, (3) Dissolved in Plasma, (4) In all the above ways. " was wrong and incorrect and that their· answer (by tiCking Alternative No. 4) wes the correct answer according to recognised text-books. They therefore contended that each one of them was entitled to an addition of 4-marks (thrCe marks for giving· the answer, plus 1 mark which had been wrongly deducted by treating their ariswers as wrong) and if such addition of 4-marks was made each one of th~m was entitled to get admission. It was contenc;fed by the appellant in the connected appeal ·that with regard to questiOn No. 100 in Zoology Paper : 984 SUPREME COURT REPDRTS . • (1984) 1 s. c. a. • .. ' JOO. ' Ascount bee findiris a food· source communica!

es to the other worker bees the Jocation ofthe food source- · • (l) ca'n not comrilunica'te the direction of food source? (2) Can communicate the direction of food so'urc; throμgh its round danee ? (3) Can communicate the direction of food source throusb its tail wagging dance 1 (4) Can communicate.. the· direction of food source ~hro\Jgh its round dance as well as tail Wagging ,d8nce ? " the •key-answer' supplied by the ·paper setter (being Alternative No. 3) was cle::irly wrong. incOrrect while ! he ans\ver 'given by the ·appellant. (by ticking P!. tternative No. 4) was the correct answer according to· recognised text-boOks and tlierefore she v. a$- entitled to afl-addition of four marks (3 for giving the correct answer, plus_ -j ·mark \Vhich ~as wrongfy de'ducted by treating her· answer ~s incorrect) and on this baSis she would be entitled . to get the ·admission. The University rejeCted their cases and the Hig~ Court dismissed their · writ petition.

· In the appeals to this Court, H. ELD : I. If the: •key-answer' (i. e. the ans. wer · which the paper-setter has supplied to the University as the i;:orrCct answ~r and which has been fed into the Computer) is shown to be demonstrnbly wrong,. that is to say~ such . "as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the. particular subject would regard it a~-correct. a:nd if_ the answer 8:iven by a student is_eorrect if regard be had to acknowledged text-books or books which the student was expected to ·read a·nd consult b"efore appearing for· the test · it would be unfair to penalise tl}e student for not giving an answer which accords with the keyanswer' that is. to say with an. answer which is demonslrated to be-wron~. . [986 A-CJ In the fristant cases. both sides have relied upon·the passage at page 547 of th'e text. :book 'Medical Physiology• by Author C.

Cuyton ; which on careful reading reveals that bo~h the •key-answer' Supplied by the paper-setter as ~ell as the answer given by the two appellants will have _to be regarded-. as· wrong. ! '! either of the appellants is therCfore entitled to an addition of 4-~arks. aS suggested on their behalf. [988C, H, 9890] . ~ . 2. The question set by the paper~tter viz. question NO. 100 mokCs no reference whatsoever to any r'3. nge with reference to which the candidate is ca1le~ uPoo to give an a~swer and in the absence of a'ny reference to ·the l:aoge; • ,AfiiuJ1t SEN v. tl;P. STATE (TulzapuJkar, J. ) ~. SS a~cording to ·the passages in the text-books: 'BiologiCal Science' by William H. Gregary and Edward H. Goldman and . 'Special Organisation on Honey- :t>ees'·by Dr. V. Presser; Alternative :l\o. 4 would be the correct answer and not Alternative No. 3 which had been supplied as 'key-answer' by the phpersetter. It is a case of a tricky question being set by the paper-setter.

where one of the essential aspects nan1cly the_ ranke has not been indicated anywhere in the question. The appellant ticked Alternative No. 4 tis being the correet answer to the question. The appella'nt is ~ntitled to get adini&sion to the ·M. B. B. S. course.. [989E, 990/\. , C, E, H, 991Al l. Kanpur University & Ors: v. Samir Gupta and Ors. [1984l I S. C. R. 73 referred tO. ' CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISD! CTTON Civil Appeal Nos. 4116 to 4119 ofl983. From the Jud. gment and Order. dated 24tn February; . 1983 of the High Court of Judicature at Allaqabad (Lucknow Bench) at Lucknow in W. Ps. No. 7297, 4774. 5214 of 1982 ilnd • R. K. Garg, . and A. K. Gupta, for the Appellants: rs. Shobha Dikshii for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR; J. Civil Appeal Nos. 4092-4114/83 (Kanpur University & Ors. v. Sarni~ Gapta & Ors. ) mid Civil Appeal . Nos. 4068-4091/83 (State of U. P. & Ors. v. Sarnir Gupta & Ors.

(') were disposed of by this Court by its Judgment dated September 27, 1983. The instant'appeals by four failed students though connected with the aforesaid appeals and arising out of a common. judgment of the ·Allahabad High Court dated 24·2·! 982 could not, for some reasons, be disposed of along wit]} the aforesaid appeals and have been ·assigned to this Bench. ·The defects, that emerged on record . in impiementing and carrying out the 'Multiple Choice Objective Type Test' while holding'a 'Combined Pre-Medical Test' which was done pursuant to the orders issued by the State Government in that behalf under s. 28 of. the U. P. State Universities Act, 197~ by the. Kanpur . University "in 1982 for giving admission to the 7-Med,ical Colleges in ·the State of Uttar Pradesh for the d983 session, have.

been pointed out, elaborately discussed and commented upoil' by this Court in its judgment dated September 27, 1983 and therefore it is unnecessary for us to dilate on those aspects o,f the matter . again while dispesing (I) [1984] 1 S. C. R. 73; ,.. ,. SUPRllMli COURT REPORTS U984l I s. c. il. of the instant appeals. Suffice it to say that this Courr has expressed therein a clear and. categorial view that if the 'key-answer' (i. e. the answer. which the papsr-setter has supplied to the University as the correct answer and which has been fed into the Computer) is shown to be demo~strably wrong. that is to say, such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subjec( would regard it as correct and .

if the answer gi~en by a student is correct if regard be had to acknowledged text-books or books which the student was ex· pected to read and consult before appearing for the test it would be unfair to penalise the student for not giving an answer which accords with the 'key-answer' that is to say with an answer which is demons· ! rated to be wrong. The contentions raised in the instant appeals will have to be considered within . these parameters indicated in the judgment.. At the outset it may be stated that Civil Appeal No. 4116/83 (filed by Appellant Abhijit Sen) and Civil Appeal No. 4118/83 (filed by Appellant Satyendra Vikram Singh) were not pressed before us and have to be dismissed. Kumari Sbivani Aggarwal and Kurnari Sunita Khare (the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 4117 &4119of1983) have challenged the University's decision which decision has been upheld ' by tbe Allahabad High Couri) of refusing them admission to the M. B. B S. course in any of the seven Medical Colleges.

Learned Counsel appearing for them contended that the 'key-answer' supplied· by the Pa. per: setter to question No. 31 in Zoology Paper (being Alternative No. 2) was wrong or incorrect and th~ answer given by both the appellants (by ticking Alternative No. 4) was the correct. answer according to recognised text·b wed. We allow it accordingly with . cost and direct the respondents to giv,e her admission to the M. B. B. S. course in the 1983 session. The other ·· three appeals 11re dismissed but there will 'be no orders as to costs. ' • N. V. K. C. A, 4119/83 allowed. • C. A. 4116-1883 dismissed. • ... ~· ;,_ . ,. .. l ' •'